This is serious. Europe banned them. GMO food is
a death sentence.Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe
was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they
did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry
to drop their ploys. To learn how to choose healthier
non-GMO
brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

Arpad Pusztai

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300
articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his
field.

But when he accidentally discovered that
genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech
industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists
thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a
$3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety
testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than
20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in
Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his
employer for the previous 35 years.

The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed
to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed
supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed
potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and
testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover,
the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of
genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market,
which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on
humans.

With permission from his director, Pusztai
was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a
hero at his institute -- for two days.

Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO
prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning,
Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was
dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech
industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to
destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before
Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the
prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the
GM foods eaten every day by Americans.

Irina Ermakova

Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the
Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than
half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed
the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers
fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She
repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary
findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to
replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told
her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her
lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried
to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation
problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at
Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the
deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it,
we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more
recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not
unique to her one bag of GM flour.

In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to
the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All
the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other
scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It
had skyrocketed to over 55 percent.

It’s been four years since these findings
were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it
would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco

Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading
Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the
herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered
Roundup Ready crops.

Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s
Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the
herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of
fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much
as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

Tragically, his research had been inspired by
the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were
suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields
throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain,
the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco,
ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition,
four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely
aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his
study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said.
“I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that
others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental
Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of
Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Judy Carman

Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to
investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She
knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to
track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term
animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology,
tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and
are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health.

Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval
process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks
openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM
scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and
circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.

Carman was awarded a grant by the Western
Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding
studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO
advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be
withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture
minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should
therefore cancel the grant.

As his evidence, however, he presented
a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies -- an infinitesimal
amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.

A closer investigation, however, revealed
that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production
studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9
contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse
effects in animals that ate GM feed!

Furthermore, there were several other studies
with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation.
Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops
are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be
harmful to health.”

When the Western Government refused to
withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s
relationship with the university where she was to do the research.

Terje Traavik

Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield
developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;

Genetic material inserted into GM crops
transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and

Key safety assumptions about genetically
engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of
using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr.
Traavik. Their excuse? -- he presented unpublished work. But presenting
preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science,
something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to
counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking
Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed
publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented
at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams
can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems.
The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall,
which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of
abuse.”

Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops

When Ohio State University plant ecologist
Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer
Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by
withholding GM seeds and genes.

After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found
significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM
soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide
samples.

Research by a plant geneticist at a leading
US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In
fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems.
According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific
American,

“Agritech companies have given
themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers ... Only
studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a
peer-reviewed journal.”

A group of 24 corn insect scientists
protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from
biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the
critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for
fear of reprisals from the companies.

Restricted access is not limited to the US.
When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM
soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker
DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas
discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country.
Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies.

Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his
preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report
about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public
relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk -- so
she faxed it out.

GMO Contamination: Don’t Ask and Definitely Don’t Tell

In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed
samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM
varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her
testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to
her lab was denied.

The unexpected transfer may have saved this
Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported
contamination.

Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist
from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties
in Mexico -- the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn—had
become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties.

The government had a ban against GM corn to
prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had
been planted nonetheless.

Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature,
and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government
about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious
Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation
of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the
government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article.
According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even
implying, “We know where your children go to school.”

When a traumatized Chapela still did not back
down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that
because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally
responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in
general.

The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary
Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology
listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They
falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been
peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and
his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon,
hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the
accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature
with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.

UC Berkeley also received letters from all
over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had
overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international
biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a
lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.

When investigators later analyzed the email
characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two
turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian,
both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for
Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address
of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com -- the server owned by Monsanto.

Science and Debate is Silenced

The attacks on scientists have taken its
toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists
“asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says,
“It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.”
He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field
precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley
told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by
telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns
about aspects of the research that is taking place ... and the increasingly
close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are
convinced that if they express these fears publicly ... or even if they
asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their
institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal
testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost
genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for
forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a
different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using
volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because
I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are
creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of
a human clinical trial.”

To learn more about the health dangers of
GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food
supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

Sources:

Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the
US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government
assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough
pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.

If we band together as an effective army we
will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of
people in the US do not want GM foods, so this is an EASY battle to win.
All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.

So let me tell you how we are going to
achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.

October
is Non-GMO Month, and you’ll receive a lot
of important information about genetically engineered foods this week.

The Tipping Point is Near - The Time to Join is NOW!

How many Americans do we need to convince
to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in
the US?

We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT
of US shoppers!

So, changing the shopping habits of about
5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.

That is our goal!

We already have these numbers on our side.
About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven
million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty
nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if
labeled!

Unfortunately, no labeling is required,
making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But
that’s where we come in.

How You Can Help Others to Avoid GMO Foods

Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it
is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO
labeling.

However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a
resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the
free Non-GMO
Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is
very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are
merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.

You can really help by making this message
go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US,
please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and
Twitter…

If you feel more ambitious you can also order
the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the
grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get
permission to post them in their store.

Who Will You Share this Information With?

You can help nurture this consumer mindset
by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that
she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete
Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.

You can also share information with your
child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The
IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:

Heath care provider kit

Parents and Schools educational material

Manufacturers information kit

Please remember to share this with your
friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself
a pest and risk your relationship with them. But believe me, this is a
MUCH easier sell than getting them to stop smoking or eating less sugar
since most do not want GMOs anyway, and it doesn’t involve giving
anything up.

You may even want to share this information
with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,

Must-See Movies to Share!

The IRT has created a film called Hidden
Dangers in Kid’s Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get
an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which
is ideal for local access TV.

You can simply bring the
film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it
10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and
are open to support from the community.

There’s also a video called Your
Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine
growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows
injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same
mistake again…

Your Action Plan

I’ve already mentioned a number of
different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To
recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for
you to pick and choose from:

Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO
Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs.
Remember to look for products (including organic products) that
feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure
that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.

Download
the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever
you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in
the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the
applications.

You've heard of Frankenfood... now get ready for Frankenfish as the feds
move closer toward approving genetically modified salmon.

And while I'm no knee-jerk reactionary who opposes any attempt at
genetically modified food, it's clear there's something fishy going on
here -- because the feds are playing hide-and-seek with the data.

"We do have obligations under the regulations to protect company
confidential information," FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey told the
Washington Post.

WOW!

That's the kind of stunning honesty we don't hear enough from the FDA,
because that's as close as the agency has ever come to saying publicly
that they want to protect the companies -- not you.

Here's what I can tell you: The studies we know of are small in scope,
limited, and provided by the company that makes the fish.

Despite all that, the feds are treating this like a salmon run rather than
a scientific deliberation. They're rushing this through, with advisory
panels already breaking out the forks and knives: They've declared the
fish both safe to eat and safe for the environment.

The fish, called AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon, supposedly look, act and
taste like Atlantic salmon -- but they actually contain a growth hormone
from the Chinook salmon and a gene from the fast-growing ocean pout.

I don't know if you've ever seen an ocean pout, but they look a bit like
the Loch Ness Monster.

The end result: Fish that get fatter faster, and with less food.
AquAdvantage salmon can be ready for dinner table in 16-18 months, instead
of the usual 30.

But even with limited data, I've already heard that these fish may have
higher levels of IGF-1, a known carcinogen. I have to say "may"
because -- again -- we just can't be sure about anything since so much of
the data is confidential.

Yet we're supposed to just shut up and chow down?

Heck, no! Until they provide us with real facts and real research, I
declare these salmon to be a no-swim zone.

Just make sure you enjoy real, honest-to-goodness salmon and other fatty
fish -- keep reading to find out why.

As the world awaits the FDA's decision on
whether to approve genetically modified salmon as "safe enough"
to allow into the food supply, it seems that not enough people in the
existing fishing industries have really thought this through. As you'll
see here, approval of GE salmon could destroy the existing salmon
industry. Why? Here's the reason:

The FDA says that once it approves GE salmon (which now seems likely), it
will not require GE salmon to be labeled as "genetically
modified" or "genetically engineered." In fact, the
FDA ridiculously claims it would be illegal to require these GE
fish to be labeled as such because they are, in the minds of the FDA, no
different from regular fish.

Now here's why this matters: If consumers are not told which salmon
is GE, many will avoid buying ALL salmon.

In fact, organizations like NaturalNews
and many others like the Organic Consumers Association would likely take
strong action, warning people to avoid all salmon because you
never know which salmon is genetically
modified.

As word about the non-labeling of GE salmon spreads, more and more
consumers would avoid buying salmon altogether. This is precisely how
the introduction of GE salmon into the
food supply could destroy the existing salmon industry.

The FDA's inexcusable non-labeling of genetically modified salmon creates
distrust in the entire category. And just as the natural
health community has been successful in warning people to avoid MSG
and HFCS, we will almost certainly be successful in warning people away
from eating salmon,
too (if GE salmon infects the food
supply). And that's a shame because, by and large, the natural
health industry supports wild-caught salmon as a healthy source
of omega-3 oils. But virtually overnight, the FDA's approval of GE
salmon could reverse our position on this issue and make us outspoken
opponents of buying and consuming salmon.

I wonder if the salmon industry is aware that this situation could
devastate existing salmon farms and fisheries?

Opening the floodgates to more GE factory farmed animals

That GE salmon could cause sharp losses
across the existing salmon industry is only the beginning of the
problems potentially unleashed by the FDA's disturbing shortsightedness.
There has never been a genetically engineered animal approved for use in
the U.S. food supply,
but once the FDA approves GE salmon, it sets a precedent for other
genetically engineered animals to follow.

Imagine a genetically modified cow with triple growth hormone genes,
carrying muscles (meat)
so large that it can't even stand on its own feet. It is grown in a
"cow factory" where it suffers every day from the pain
of its unnatural existence. It never sees the outdoors or experiences a
single day of freedom in a pasture. Instead, it is fed antibiotics and
GMO feed crops through a system of tubes, much like the imprisoned
characters in The Matrix. The sole purpose of its life is to grow
premium steaks and ground beef, sold by a company that genetically
engineers animals to create greed-driven food profits
without a single thought about the suffering of the animal itself.

This is exactly what could be unleashed by the FDA's decision on GE
salmon. Only it wouldn't end with just cows: Imagine genetically
modified pigs, chickens and lambs, all distorted into artificial
meat-producing forms to satisfy corporate profits.

Vaccines from sheep flesh

And it won't end with just food, either.
Scientists are already experimenting with genetically modified animals
who "grow" pharmaceuticals. Imagine a factory farm of sheep
whose bodies are tapped to produce vaccines
or hormone drugs.

This is the sick, demented world to which the biotechnology industry is
now looking for the next wave of profits. Fueled by arrogant greed and a
deeply-rooted disrespect for the natural world (and the suffering of
sentient beings, which include farm animals), they will pursue
bottom-line profits by any means necessary... even if it means playing
God with the genes of animals and giving rise to Franken-animals that
experience tremendous pain and suffering while being grown for food.
(Much like in The Matrix, once again.)

The pain and suffering committed by factory farms today is more than
enough reason to consider giving up all conventionally-raised meat
products, by the way. But it could get far worse if the industry is
allowed to start genetically engineering mutant animals designed to
produce more meat (or milk) more quickly and with higher profits. And it
all starts with GE salmon.

How do we even know, by the way, whether the genetically modified salmon
who grow twice as fast as regular salmon experience some sort of unnatural
pain as a result of their gene distortions? These gene modifications
can, from another point of view, be described as a kind of "birth
defect," and some birth defects quite literally result in
tremendous suffering for those being unfortunate enough to be affected
by them.

Not surprisingly, the experience of the animal isn't even being
taken into account by the FDA! This agency, which is blind to the
experience of animals, only cares about the impact of GE salmon on
people who eat its flesh, not about the experience of the fish.

If this same lack of empathy is applied to future decisions regarding GE
animals, it will only lead us down a dark path of Frankenfood misery,
where humanity becomes the monster that creates horrific mutant
animals to be grown and harvested in dark places, behind the closed
doors of the sickening meat industry.

Action you can take right now

What can you do to stop this crime
against nature? For starters, you can contact the FDA right now and tell
them two things:

1) You oppose allowing GE salmon to be introduced into the food supply.
2) If it is approved, you support honest labeling
of the salmon to indicate that it is genetically engineered.

If the FDA approves GE salmon, get ready
to join NaturalNews in a nationwide boycott of salmon products.

As long as GE salmon is not honestly labeled, we will boycott salmon
products, and we will coordinate with other non-profits who share our
belief that consumers have a right to know what they're buying
and eating.

For the FDA to say that they refuse to require the honest labeling of GE
salmon is an outrageous insult to consumer intelligence. It's beyond an
insult, actually: It's more like a crime against the People
because it consciously seeks to misinform the public about what
they're eating.

This demonstrates yet again how dangerous the FDA has actually become.
Far from protecting consumers, the FDA has become the single greatest
threat to the health
and safety of the American people. This agency actively seeks to
keep people in the dark about what they're buying and eating. It is a
purveyor of ignorance and disinformation, and it is engaged in a
conspiracy to commit yet another crime against humanity (against the
entire planet, actually) in order to protect biotech profits.

Why can't the FDA just tell the truth and, at minimum, require that GE
salmon be labeled as such?

Because being honest apparently isn't in the agency's genes. Maybe we
need to genetically modify the FDA and insert some "truth
hormone" proteins so it attains the ability to tell the truth. That
would be a radical modification from the current behavior of the agency,
wouldn't it?